Pension

Pension is not a matter of bounty, charity, or benevolence, it is a right protected under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution and inseparably linked with the right to life, dignity and livelihood, for without sustenance in old age, these rights ring hollow

It should be taken more seriously for those public servants for whom it is a crystallized return on years of faithful service, a form of deferred wages earned through the sweat, labour, and loyalty of an employee

It embodies the principle that those who serve must not be cast aside in their twilight years

To deny or withhold pension is to strip a person of the security they have justly earned, leaving them exposed to indignity, vulnerability, and want

Therefore this right must be protected in the shape of the grant of pension that is not only adequate but also predictable

Moreover, an element of respect and empathy is to be maintained while granting pension which would be inconsonance with the values that our Constitution espouses with dignity as the highest constitutional value

The law itself stands as ashield to protect the rights of such employees, ensuring that long earned entitlements are not eroded by institutional caprice

To trifle with pension is, therefore, to trifle with constitutional justice itself.

Pension is not a matter of bounty, charity, or benevolence, it is a right protected under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution and inseparably linked with the right to life, dignity and livelihood, for without sustenance in old age, these rights ring hollow

It should be taken more seriously for those public servants for whom it is a crystallized return on years of faithful service, a form of deferred wages earned through the sweat, labour, and loyalty of an employee

It embodies the principle that those who serve must not be cast aside in their twilight years

To deny or withhold pension is to strip a person of the security they have justly earned, leaving them exposed to indignity, vulnerability, and want

Therefore this right must be protected in the shape of the grant of pension that is not only adequate but also predictable

Moreover, an element of respect and empathy is to be maintained while granting pension which would be inconsonance with the values that our Constitution espouses with dignity as the highest constitutional value

The law itself stands as ashield to protect the rights of such employees, ensuring that long earned entitlements are not eroded by institutional caprice

To trifle with pension is, therefore, to trifle with constitutional justice itself.

Claims constituting payment of lawful dues constitute a recurring cause of action and delay, if any, would not automatically vitiate a claim.

Claims constituting payment of lawful dues constitute a recurring cause of action and delay, if any, would not automatically vitiate a claim.

Petitioner after having been retired from service compulsorily from the rank of 2nd Lieutenant sought condonation of deficiency in his qualifying service for pension

Such relief was regretted being not covered under the Rules and Regulations in vogue

Validity

It is inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law as envisaged by Art. 4 of the Constitution, thus, it is the duty and obligation of every public functionary including the respondent to act within the four corners of the mandate of the Constitution and pass a speaking order

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstance, while setting aside the impugned order and the matter was remitted back to respondent for decision afresh strictly in accordance with the Reglns. 3(a)(2), 32 & 33 of the Pension Regulations Volume I (Armed Forces) 2010 through a speaking order by providing proper hearing to petitioner.

Petitioner/civil servant was aggrieved of order passed by authorities withholding pensionary benefits on the ground of his absence from duty without leave

Order of the authorities was maintained by High Court

Validity

Pension articulates payment of fixed amount, according to scheme of pension in accordance with law, rules and regulations, or pension scheme in vogue, which is recompensed on regular basis to a person on his superannuation

Foremost and predominant strength of mind is to afford and safeguard economic refuge and shelter and recuperate old age security

In general phenomena, superannuation or stepping down is considered a second innings in which a retired person aspires to live up to his highly anticipated imaginings or dreams and devote time to his kith and kin and friends

After retirement, timely payment of pension is considered as main source of income or livelihood

Despite serving for a long time with sheer commitment, if pensionary benefits are delayed or denied without any lawful justification or without assigning any reason or providing any opportunity of hearing, it would be a very sorry state of affairs, rather an appalling and deplorable situation for a person who performed his duties with utmost dedication and enthusiasm throughout his career but at the eve of his retirement, he was treated inhumanly, coldheartedly and gets nothing on the pretext of totally misconceived interpretation of some rule

Pension could not have been denied to petitioner/civil servant without issuing show cause notice and providing opportunity of hearing

Petitioner/civil servant was deprived of his pensionary benefits despite serving the department for at least 24 years, 05 months and 15 days without adjustment of his earned leaves

Payment of pensionary benefits are protected under the law, rules and regulations, even in private sector, where scheme of pension in vogue is according to the organizational/management policy

Where pension is payable, it is a vested right and not charity, alms or donation by the employer, but a compensation of services rendered assiduously by giving blood, sweat, toil and tears

Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and the authorities ensured payment of pension to petitioner/civil servant

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed.

Pension is not a bounty; it should be considered as a recognition of the satisfactory service of the retiring person.

Petitioner/civil servant was aggrieved of order passed by authorities withholding pensionary benefits on the ground of his absence from duty without leave

Order of the authorities was maintained by High Court

Validity

Pension articulates payment of fixed amount, according to scheme of pension in accordance with law, rules and regulations, or pension scheme in vogue, which is recompensed on regular basis to a person on his superannuation

Foremost and predominant strength of mind is to afford and safeguard economic refuge and shelter and recuperate old age security

In general phenomena, superannuation or stepping down is considered a second innings in which a retired person aspires to live up to his highly anticipated imaginings or dreams and devote time to his kith and kin and friends

After retirement, timely payment of pension is considered as main source of income or livelihood

Despite serving for a long time with sheer commitment, if pensionary benefits are delayed or denied without any lawful justification or without assigning any reason or providing any opportunity of hearing, it would be a very sorry state of affairs, rather an appalling and deplorable situation for a person who performed his duties with utmost dedication and enthusiasm throughout his career but at the eve of his retirement, he was treated inhumanly, coldheartedly and gets nothing on the pretext of totally misconceived interpretation of some rule

Pension could not have been denied to petitioner/civil servant without issuing show cause notice and providing opportunity of hearing

Petitioner/civil servant was deprived of his pensionary benefits despite serving the department for at least 24 years, 05 months and 15 days without adjustment of his earned leaves

Payment of pensionary benefits are protected under the law, rules and regulations, even in private sector, where scheme of pension in vogue is according to the organizational/management policy

Where pension is payable, it is a vested right and not charity, alms or donation by the employer, but a compensation of services rendered assiduously by giving blood, sweat, toil and tears

Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and the authorities ensured payment of pension to petitioner/civil servant

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed.

Pension is not a bounty; it should be considered as a recognition of the satisfactory service of the retiring person.

Petitioners were aggrieved of notice issued by respondent authorities seeking recovery of excess pension paid to their predecessor-in-interest

Validity

Respondent authorities issued pay-slip to predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, who had received the amount

There was no allegation that predecessor-in-interest of petitioners had obtained fake pay-slip and received the amount fraudulently

Respondent authorities paid salary creating vested right which could not subsequently be taken away on mere assumption and supposition or on the whim of executive authority

Such right once vested could not be withdrawn as legal bar would come into play under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae

High Court declared the notice issued by authorities as ab-initio illegal, void and of no legal effect

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Principles for grant of pension to employees in temporary service for more than 5 years under Art. 371-A of CSR and R. 2.3 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, are analogous to each other.

Plea of paucity of funds to pay the pensionary/service benefits to retired employees and their families taken by the respondents

Legality

Pension, like salary, is a regular source of livelihood and thus is protected by the right to life enshrined in and guaranteed by Art.9 of the Constitution, and right to life of a person/citizen shall include the right to livelihood and such right, therefore, cannot hang on the fancies of individuals in authority

Pension is not a bounty from them i.e. individuals in authority, nor can its survival be at their mercy

Long and unjustified delay in payment of pensions has been a source of tremendous hardship and humiliation to retired officials and their families

Despite strictures and orders passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its various pronouncements, and simplified guidelines laid down by the Government, petitions on account of delay persist

Merely stating lack of funds is not sufficient to deny the rights of the pensioners

Pension granted or continued to the pensioner is not liable to seizure by the department under Pension Act, 1871, and the rules framed thereunder

Government has no power to withhold gratuity, pension or any service benefits at any stage either before the proceeding or after the conclusion of the proceedings, if any

High Court directed the Chief Secretary of Sindh to form a committee to address and resolve pension and service benefit issues of the petitioners, including recalculation of any arrears and the committee must act according to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Haji Muhammad Ismail Memon (PLD 2007 SC 35) and ensure timely payments

Disciplinary action was also suggested against officials, who neglected these responsibilities

Constitution petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner, after completing his contractual appointment as Chairman Federal Service Tribunal for three years, claimed his entitlement of pension equivalent to retired judge of High Court

Contention of petitioner was that he had served on different public assignments on contractual basis and the length of such services was sufficient to entitle him for pensionary benefits

Validity

Paragraphs 2 & 3 of Fifth Schedule to Art. 205 of the Constitution either read separately / conjunctively or disjunctively, do not alter/change in any manner the requirement of minimum five years length of actual service for every judge of High Court as one of the basic condition to earn right to pension

Right to pension is neither absolute nor unqualified

Pension is not a bounty for the State/employer to servant/employee

Such right is tailored on the premise and resolution that employee serves his employer in the days of his ability and capacity and during the former's debility, the latter compensates him for the services so rendered

Right to pension has to be earned and for the attainment of which condition of length of service is the most relevant and purposive

Contractual offices held by petitioner, even if considered aggregately (which could not have been done under a law) or separately, utterly independent of office of the Chairman Federal Service Tribunal, did not make him entitled to the right to pension under any law

Office of the Chairman Federal Service Tribunal was term-based and contractual in nature, plus it did not confer any right to pension upon petitioner

Case of retired judges of Federal Shariat Court et al had no imaginable parallel with the case of the petitioner to bring him at par with them

All judges of Federal Shariat Court were permanent judges of respective High Courts and had received pensions in that capacity

Petitioner never served against any permanent or regular job, not to mention his lack of qualification i.e. not completing minimum qualifying service of 5 years to claim pension

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as such position was unassailable in law

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

On one hand, the appellant was pleading that he was a permanent employee and was requesting the grant of pensionary benefits, but on the contrary, in the earlier round of litigation up to the Supreme Court, he himself pleaded that some other project employees were regularized by the employer-Board, and therefore he should also be regularized in service, which was sufficient to divulge by his own conduct that he was not a regular employee but performing his duties as project employee

Status of the appellant as a project employee had already been examined and set at rest in the earlier round of litigation up to the level of the Supreme Court

In the case in hand, besides the doctrine of estoppel, the doctrine of election and doctrine of qui approbat non reprobat (one who approbates cannot reprobate) were also applicable

Even under the doctrine of past and closed transaction, the present controversy could not be reopened by the Supreme Court in the second round of litigation which on the face of it was an abuse of process of the Court

Appeal was dismissed.

On one hand, the appellant was pleading that he was a permanent employee and was requesting the grant of pensionary benefits, but on the contrary, in the earlier round of litigation up to the Supreme Court, he himself pleaded that some other project employees were regularized by the employer-Board, and therefore he should also be regularized in service, which was sufficient to divulge by his own conduct that he was not a regular employee but performing his duties as project employee

Status of the appellant as a project employee had already been examined and set at rest in the earlier round of litigation up to the level of the Supreme Court

In the case in hand, besides the doctrine of estoppel, the doctrine of election and doctrine of qui approbat non reprobat (one who approbates cannot reprobate) were also applicable

Even under the doctrine of past and closed transaction, the present controversy could not be reopened by the Supreme Court in the second round of litigation which on the face of it was an abuse of process of the Court

Appeal was dismissed.

Appellants claimed to be great distant legal heirs of the deceased who was issueless; thus, they sought their due share in his pensionary benefits

Widow of deceased had also filed an application for similar relief

Trial Court dismissed the application filed by appellants and allowed that of the widow

Validity

Pension of a deceased was not heritable property i.e. it did not constitute 'tarka' of the deceased, and its distribution was governed under the statute/rules that provided for such pension

Appellants were not entitled to receive any share from the pensionary benefits of deceased

Orders passed by Trial Court did not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity to warrant interference by the High Court

Appeals were dismissed.

Appellants claimed to be great distant legal heirs of the deceased who was issueless; thus, they sought their due share in his pensionary benefits

Widow of deceased had also filed an application for similar relief

Trial Court dismissed the application filed by appellants and allowed that of the widow

Validity

Pension of a deceased was not heritable property i.e. it did not constitute 'tarka' of the deceased, and its distribution was governed under the statute/rules that provided for such pension

Appellants were not entitled to receive any share from the pensionary benefits of deceased

Orders passed by Trial Court did not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity to warrant interference by the High Court

Appeals were dismissed.

Article 371 of Civil Service Regulations (C.S.R.) did not allow Government servants rendering temporary service in a temporary establishment for more than 5 years to be entitled for grant of pension rather such period could be counted towards calculation of pension only if otherwise entitled to pension by meeting the criteria of qualifying service

Where the services of a contractual employee were converted into regular employment the period spent in contractual employment subject to a minimum of five years could be included in calculating pensionary benefits but only and only in a situation where the employee was otherwise entitled/eligible to receive pension subject to having rendered qualifying service (10 years) in permanent employment

Unless he met the criteria of having served for the duration of the qualifying period, the period spent in contractual employment could not be added to make up for any deficiency in qualifying service for the purpose of eligibility to receive pension.

Such right accrues in favour of the retired civil servant due to the length of his service and that right is then bestowed upon the persons mentioned in the Rules in the event of their death.

Right to a pension may be made to depend upon such conditions, as the grantor may see fit to prescribe.

Petitioner/civil servant applied for voluntary retirement and was ultimately retired vide retirement order after the expiry of leave preparatory to retirement ("LPR")

Petitioner applied for pension but his case was returned by Authority on the ground that his age was less than 50 years at the time of retirement as per requirement under S. 12 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973

Petitioner contended that the Amended S.12 of the Act, 1974 could not apply to his case retrospectively as his retirement order was issued prior to the date of commencement of the Amended S.12 of the Act; that the retirement order lawfully passed by the competent authority could not be recalled; that date of retirement was to be reckoned from the date of retirement order and that withholding of pension was against the fundamental right of the Petitioner

Held, that amended S.12 of the Act shall apply prospectively and shall not affect the retirement orders lawfully passed by a competent authority before the date of its commencement

Finance Department had no authority under the law to clarify, interpret, abridge or extend the right of family pension provided under S.18(2) of the Act and further regulated by the Rules of 1963

Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) could be recalled in terms of R.18 of the Rules, 1981, by the designated official therein but power so conferred was limited to the period of LPR

Said Rule it could not be applied to revoke the retirement order itself

Date of retirement order was actually the date of retirement as the right to retire/receive pension would mature on the said date

It was merely the initiation of pension which was given effect from the last date of LPR

Principle of locus poenitentiae was fully attracted in the petitioner's case as accrued right vested with the petitioner on 19/08/2020, i.e. the date of his retirement order, which was lawfully passed on the said date by the competent authority in accordance with prevailing law

Petitioner exercised his right in accordance with the applicable law at the relevant time by following the prescribed procedure and was duly granted retirement along with the benefit of availing of LPR as depicted from the retirement order, hence, he effectively retired on the date of retirement order which preceded the date of Amended S.12 of the Act

Future date regarding initiation of pension after availing of LPR which was subsequent to the date of commencement of Amended S.12 of the Act was, therefore, irrelevant for the application of the provisions of Amended S.12 of the Act as the right to retire/receive pension matured on the date of retirement which preceded the Amended S.12 of the Act

Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.

Article 371 of Civil Service Regulations (C.S.R.) did not allow Government servants rendering temporary service in a temporary establishment for more than 5 years to be entitled for grant of pension rather such period could be counted towards calculation of pension only if otherwise entitled to pension by meeting the criteria of qualifying service

Where the services of a contractual employee were converted into regular employment the period spent in contractual employment subject to a minimum of five years could be included in calculating pensionary benefits but only and only in a situation where the employee was otherwise entitled/eligible to receive pension subject to having rendered qualifying service (10 years) in permanent employment

Unless he met the criteria of having served for the duration of the qualifying period, the period spent in contractual employment could not be added to make up for any deficiency in qualifying service for the purpose of eligibility to receive pension.

Both the employees in question opted for revised 2001 package/scheme and their pensions were accordingly calculated on the basis of revised pay scales which admittedly came. into effect from 1.12.2001 while they had retired on 30.11.2001

Said employees in essence requested and opted that the date of their retirement be treated as 1.12.2001 so that they may be able to avail the benefit of the policy of 2001 and hence the better financial package that it provided

Employees continued to receive salaries and periodical increases in pension granted to those who were governed by the 2001 package, however, when the two notifications in question, dealing with pension, were issued, the same envisaged an increase @ 20% for those retiring on or before 30.11.2001 and 15% for those who retired on or after 1.12.2001

Employees in question had opted for the revised package of 2001 and had been treated as per their own option, freely exercised, as having presumptively retired on or before 1.12.2001

Much after issuance of the notifications, employees wished to claim 20% increase in their pensions asserting that their date of retirement may again be treated as 30.11.2001 which was not justified for the reason that they had already availed the benefit of the presumptive provisions of 2001 package whereby they were treated as having retired with effect from 1.12.2001

Having availed the said benefit continuously till issuance of the notifications they were estopped from claiming that they may be treated differently this time by treating their date of retirement as 30.11.2001 so that they could avail an additional benefit which was not due to them and was not given to any other employee

Employees having voluntarily opted to be governed under the pay and pension package of 2001 effective from 1.12.2001 could not be given an additional benefit which was intended to bring those who had retired on or before 30-11-2001 and were being governed by the 1994 package at par with those who had opted for the 2001 package

Employees were entitled to increase in their pension only to the extent @ 15% pursuant to the notifications

Appeal and petition for leave to appeal were disposed of accordingly.

Pension of appellants (retired pilots of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation) was initially calculated in accordance with the formula articulated in a Trust Deed of 1980 known as the "PIA PALPA FENA Pension Fund"

Subsequently in the year 1981, the Martial Law Regulation No. 52 rescinded the said Trust Deed, and pension benefits were calculated first under a pension scheme of 1982 then under a supplemental trust deed called PFF Rules of 1988 which were followed by Admin Order 34 of 2003 and finally under Admin Order No. 08 of 2004

Appellants who retired in the years 2008, 2009 and 2014 were now seeking calculation of retirement benefits on the basis of Trust Deed of 1980 that stood rescinded in 1981

Admin Order No. 34 of 2003 stated that pension, commutation and gratuity shall be calculated on the basis of the salary frozen on 31.12.2002 without taking into consideration future annual increments thereby resulting in the salary component to become stagnant as its effect was that no matter how much the salary increased after 31.12.2002 the pension was to be calculated on the salary drawn on 31.12.2002

Such anomaly so created was, however, reversed by the Pakistan International Airlines through Circular No.21/2003 issued on 31.07.2003 which provided that future revision in pension shall be linked with last drawn salary

Grievance of appellants that pension was not being calculated on last drawn salary also stood redressed in 2003

Supreme Court held that appellants/retired pilots shall be entitled to the pension on the basis of the last drawn salary which they were getting at the time of their retirement

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Pension of appellants (retired pilots of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation) was initially calculated in accordance with the formula articulated in a Trust Deed of 1980 known as the "PIA PALPA FENA Pension Fund"

Subsequently in the year 1981, the Martial Law Regulation No. 52 rescinded the said Trust Deed, and pension benefits were calculated first under a pension scheme of 1982 then under a supplemental trust deed called PFF Rules of 1988 which were followed by Admin Order 34 of 2003 and finally under Admin Order No. 08 of 2004

Appellants who retired in the years 2008, 2009 and 2014 were now seeking calculation of retirement benefits on the basis of Trust Deed of 1980 that stood rescinded in 1981

Admin Order No. 34 of 2003 stated that pension, commutation and gratuity shall be calculated on the basis of the salary frozen on 31.12.2002 without taking into consideration future annual increments thereby resulting in the salary component to become stagnant as its effect was that no matter how much the salary increased after 31.12.2002 the pension was to be calculated on the salary drawn on 31.12.2002

Such anomaly so created was, however, reversed by the Pakistan International Airlines through Circular No.21/2003 issued on 31.07.2003 which provided that future revision in pension shall be linked with last drawn salary

Grievance of appellants that pension was not being calculated on last drawn salary also stood redressed in 2003

Supreme Court held that appellants/retired pilots shall be entitled to the pension on the basis of the last drawn salary which they were getting at the time of their retirement

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Deceased died during service after putting in 9 years and 8 months of service, and after his death, his widow was paid group life insurance and other financial benefits but was denied pension on the ground that he was a work-charge employee

Widow claimed that her husband being chowkidar had died after serving for a period of about 10 years, thus, she was entitled to get pension under Pension Rules of the department

Validity

Deceased employee was appointed as chowkidar, which was a permanent post and that was the reason that he had been given annual increments and upon his death, his wife was given all financial benefits including group life insurance etc.

From the nature of job and the period the deceased employee had served, it could not be said that he was a work charge employee, and there was every likelihood that he would have continued to serve had he lived longer

Serial Number 2 of paragraph 2(c)(5) of Volume-II of WAPDA Compendium of Important Directives/Office Orders issued by the Authority clearly provides that "pension as well as commutation (25%) is to be paid, if service is 9-1/2 years or more."

In the present case, the deceased employee had admittedly put in 9 years and 8 months service, hence, he being on a permanent post until his death, his widow was entitled to receive pension

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Right to pension cannot be arbitrarily abridged or reduced except in accordance with law, as it is the vested right and legitimate expectation of a retired civil servant.

Petitioner employee filed application for medical leave and leave preparatory to retirement but same was not considered and inquiry was initiated

Employee retired during the said proceedings on attaining the age of superannuation

Department did not release pensionary benefits and encashment of leave preparatory to retirement in favour of employee

Validity

Petitioner was civil servant performing his duties with the department

Leave on medical ground was considered and approved but granted as extraordinary leave without pay

Department was bound to save the rights of civil servant with regard to pension on reaching age of retirement

Employee submitted application for leave preparatory to retirement on the ground that he was unable to continue his service due to health condition

Petitioner served the department for more than twenty five years and unofficially retired after attaining the age of superannuation

Civil servant had option to pray for the type of leave and leave granting authority had no power to convert same into some other type of leave

Employee had been deprived from pension and other pensionary benefits

Inquiry report was delayed and recommendations were not considered judiciously while administrating justice

Justice was not only to be administered by the Courts but every public officer having power to do justice must act and decide the matters expeditiously in accordance with law

Department had withheld pension of employee for seven years

Withholding of pension was against the dignity of human being

Act of not finalizing the leave, inquiry and pension case of employee was a kind of exploitation and discrimination

Employee had served the department for more than twenty five years qualifying service for pension

Department was directed by the High Court to release pension of employee within one month

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Pension is not a bounty from State/employer to servant/employee but is fashioned on the premise and resolution that employee serves his employer in days of ability and capacity and during the formers' debility, the latter compensates him for the services so rendered

Right to pension has to be earned and for the accomplishment thereof.

Deceased died during service after putting in 9 years and 8 months of service, and after his death, his widow was paid group life insurance and other financial benefits but was denied pension on the ground that he was a work-charge employee

Widow claimed that her husband being chowkidar had died after serving for a period of about 10 years, thus, she was entitled to get pension under Pension Rules of the department

Validity

Deceased employee was appointed as chowkidar, which was a permanent post and that was the reason that he had been given annual increments and upon his death, his wife was given all financial benefits including group life insurance etc.

From the nature of job and the period the deceased employee had served, it could not be said that he was a work charge employee, and there was every likelihood that he would have continued to serve had he lived longer

Serial Number 2 of paragraph 2(c)(5) of Volume-II of WAPDA Compendium of Important Directives/Office Orders issued by the Authority clearly provides that "pension as well as commutation (25%) is to be paid, if service is 9-1/2 years or more."

In the present case, the deceased employee had admittedly put in 9 years and 8 months service, hence, he being on a permanent post until his death, his widow was entitled to receive pension

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Plaintiff (second wife of deceased) claimed that the deceased had divorced the defendant (first wife of deceased), followed by divorce confirmation certificate; and that the defendant and her children were, thus, not entitled to inherit from the deceased

Contention of defendant that she had never been divorced and the divorce deed and divorce confirmation certificate were manipulated since the deceased suffered from mental illness and did not have the capacity to act as such

Validity

For determining as to who was entitled to receive pension on the demise of a High Court Judge due to illness after retirement, only the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution that was relevant

Under Cl. 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution since the widow(s) were alive and had not re-married, only they are entitled to receive the family pension of the deceased and not any other legal heir

Notice allegedly sent to the concerned Union Council for initiating proceedings for confirmation of divorce with the defendant, was not signed by the deceased but by his counsel, and it was sent after 2 years of the divorce deed, making both the divorce deed and the said notice controversial

Furthermore the divorce confirmation certificate was subsequently cancelled by the issuing authority, therefore, apart from a disputed divorce deed, which was yet to be proved, there was presently nothing else to question the status of the defendant as widow of the deceased

In terms of Arts. 118 & 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 the burden to prove the disputed divorce deed laid on the plaintiff, and till such time she did so the defendant would be seriously prejudiced if her entitlement to the family pension of the deceased was stayed

High Court directed that subject to final determination in the suit, both the plaintiff and the defendant were entitled to receive the monthly family pension of the deceased in equal share as widows of the deceased in terms of Cl. 5 of the Fifth Sched. to the Constitution; that in the event the plaintiff succeeded in proving that the defendant had been divorced by the deceased, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover from the defendant the family pension received by her

Application was disposed of accordingly.

Pension of a deceased was not heritable property i.e. it did not constitute 'tarka'of the deceased, and its distribution would be governed under the statute/rules that provided for such pension.

Claim to pension was regulated by the rules in force at the time when the official retired, resigned, or was invalided, or was compulsorily retired, or was discharged from service, or was injured, or suddenly died whilst in service, depending upon the type of pension claimed.

Right to receive pension flowed directly out of the rules applicable and not out of any order of any officer or authority, though for the purposes of determining or quantifying the amount it may be necessary for the authorities to pass such order.

Pension of employee had not been finalized despite elapsing about nine years which was against the spirit of law and good governance

Authorities were bound to sanction the pension of civil servant one month before the date of retirement

Statutory provisions of law had been violated by the authorities which resulted into creating hardship, anomalous situation and agony for the retiring person

If any amount was due against the employee the same could be deducted from gratuity, leave encashment and pension of the employee

Authorities were directed by High Court to take immediate action and finalize the pension matter of the employee within one month

Writ petition was allowed in circumstances.

Employee was not granted pension benefits on the ground that he had not completed minimum required ten years service as permanent employee in the department

Validity

Two other incumbents who were colleagues of the employee were getting the pensionary benefits

Case of other two employees was same and identical in all respects

Findings of courts below were based on facts of the present case as well as that of the previous suits of the same nature

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Employees Pension Fund (as created by a Trust Deed dated the 2nd April 1994), Para. 2

Terms and conditions of service

Pension

Employees of Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department (T&T Department) who were subsequently transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (the Corporation) and then to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (the Company)

Entitlement of such employees to receive pensionary benefits as revised/increased by the Federal Government

Terms and conditions of service of the transferred employees from T&T Department to the Corporation and then to the Company remained unaltered and they continued to be paid the benefits as were admissible to them as employees of T&T Department

Terms and conditions of service and also the rules of service which were applicable to the T&T Department employees while in employment of the Federal Government would continue to be applicable to them on their transfer to the Corporation and then to the Company

Employees of T&T Department who were transferred to the Corporation and then to the Company, would on retirement be entitled to payment of pension announced by the Federal Government, from time to time, thus if any increase in pension was announced by the Federal Government for its employees, the same would also apply and be paid to the employees of T&T Department transferred to the Corporation and then to the Company

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Employees Pension Fund (as created by a Trust Deed dated the 2nd April 1994), Para. 2

Terms and conditions of service

Pension

Employees of Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department (T&T Department) who were subsequently transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (the Corporation) and then to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (the Company)

Entitlement of such employees to receive pensionary benefits as revised/increased by the Federal Government

Terms and conditions of service of the transferred employees from T&T Department to the Corporation and then to the Company remained unaltered and they continued to be paid the benefits as were admissible to them as employees of T&T Department

Terms and conditions of service and also the rules of service which were applicable to the T&T Department employees while in employment of the Federal Government would continue to be applicable to them on their transfer to the Corporation and then to the Company

Employees of T&T Department who were transferred to the Corporation and then to the Company, would on retirement be entitled to payment of pension announced by the Federal Government, from time to time, thus if any increase in pension was announced by the Federal Government for its employees, the same would also apply and be paid to the employees of T&T Department transferred to the Corporation and then to the Company

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Employees Pension Fund (as created by a Trust Deed dated the 2nd April, 1994), Para. 2

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)

Pension

Serving employees, retired employees and widows of retired employees, who were employed in the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department (T&T Department) and were subsequently transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (the Corporation) and then to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (the Company)

Entitlement of such employees to receive pensionary benefits as fixed by the Federal Government

Grievance of said employees was that pension was being paid to them in accordance with the increase announced by the Federal Government but such increase in pension was abruptly stopped after the year 2009 by the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (the Company)

Validity

Terms and conditions of service of the transferred employees from T&T Department to the Corporation and then to the Company remained unaltered and they continued to be paid the benefits as were admissible to them as employees of T&T Department

Terms and conditions of service and also the rules of service which were applicable to the T&T Department employees while in employment of the Federal Government would continue to be applicable to them on their transfer to the Corporation and then to the Company

Employees of T&T Department who were transferred to the Corporation and then to the Company, would on retirement be entitled to payment of pension according to the one announced by the Federal Government, thus if any increase in pension was announced by the Federal Government for its employees, the same would also apply and be paid to the employees of T&T Department transferred to the Corporation and then to the Company

While the Company may be entitled to fix the terms and conditions of service of its employees so also the provision of pension by the Board of Trustees of the Trust but, as regards the employees of T&T Department transferred to the Corporation and then to the Company, their terms and conditions of service stood protected by the provision of S. 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 [since repealed] and Ss. 35, 36 & 46 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996, and thus they would be entitled to payment of increase in pension as announced by the Federal Government

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Employees Pension Fund (as created by a Trust Deed dated the 2nd April, 1994), Para. 2

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)

Pension

Serving employees, retired employees and widows of retired employees, who were employed in the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department (T&T Department) and were subsequently transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (the Corporation) and then to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (the Company)

Entitlement of such employees to receive pensionary benefits as fixed by the Federal Government

Grievance of said employees was that pension was being paid to them in accordance with the increase announced by the Federal Government but such increase in pension was abruptly stopped after the year 2009 by the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (the Company)

Validity

Terms and conditions of service of the transferred employees from T&T Department to the Corporation and then to the Company remained unaltered and they continued to be paid the benefits as were admissible to them as employees of T&T Department

Terms and conditions of service and also the rules of service which were applicable to the T&T Department employees while in employment of the Federal Government would continue to be applicable to them on their transfer to the Corporation and then to the Company

Employees of T&T Department who were transferred to the Corporation and then to the Company, would on retirement be entitled to payment of pension according to the one announced by the Federal Government, thus if any increase in pension was announced by the Federal Government for its employees, the same would also apply and be paid to the employees of T&T Department transferred to the Corporation and then to the Company

While the Company may be entitled to fix the terms and conditions of service of its employees so also the provision of pension by the Board of Trustees of the Trust but, as regards the employees of T&T Department transferred to the Corporation and then to the Company, their terms and conditions of service stood protected by the provision of S. 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 [since repealed] and Ss. 35, 36 & 46 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996, and thus they would be entitled to payment of increase in pension as announced by the Federal Government

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Provincial Government issued an Office Memorandum whereby increase in pension granted during the commutation period was deducted from the pension paid to retired employees

Legality

When a retired civil servant's portion of pension was commuted for a particular period of time, he surrendered his right to receive full pension in lieu of lump sum payment received by him, and on expiry of the commuted period, his right and entitlement to receive full pension, as prescribed, was restored and re-vested in him

Restoration of the right to receive pension in terms of R. 8.12 of Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 was without any rider, and upon re-vesting of such right, the status of such retired civil servant in law was brought at par with the other retired civil servants, who had not exercised their option of seeking commutation of their pension

Retired civil servant on expiry of the period of commutation could not be discriminated against by being paid less pension, than his colleagues, who had not sought commutation, as there was no valid justification available in law between the two

If the Government were to adopt such a course of (discriminative) action, as had been attempted in the present case, it would offend Art. 25 of the Constitution

Restored pension payable to a retired civil servant upon expiry of period of commutation would obviously include any increase in pension granted by the Government during the intervening period of commutation

Even retired civil servants of the Federal Government were being paid their pension inclusive of the increases sanctioned during the commutation period, after the Supreme Court struck down an Office Memorandum, which deprived increase in pension sanctioned during the commuted period

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner was appointed Stenographer in defunct Bureau of Education and after its abolition he was absorbed in Primary Education Cell of Curriculum Research and Development Center with condition that his earlier services would be counted towards his pension

Later, said department was also merged into Punjab Text-Book Board and services of petitioner were transferred with pay protection and pensionary benefits

Government also extended benefit of past service to all services excluding service in Punjab Text Book Board

Calculation of pension and commutation was to be worked out on last pay certificate issued to petitioner which included 50% medical allowance

Punjab Text-Book Board, on his retirement approved provident fund but his medical allowance on full pension was withdrawn

Validity

Merger of Curriculum Research and Development Center with Punjab Text Book Board was made subject to pay protection and unaffected pensionary benefits, therefore, burden of pension payment would be transferred to Punjab Text Book Board and employee would be entitled to medical allowance for all his Government service in various departments

High Court accepted constitutional petition in circumstances.

Provincial Government issued an Office Memorandum whereby increase in pension granted during the commutation period was deducted from the pension paid to retired employees

Legality

When a retired civil servant's portion of pension was commuted for a particular period of time, he surrendered his right to receive full pension in lieu of lump sum payment received by him, and on expiry of the commuted period, his right and entitlement to receive full pension, as prescribed, was restored and re-vested in him

Restoration of the right to receive pension in terms of R. 8.12 of Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 was without any rider, and upon re-vesting of such right, the status of such retired civil servant in law was brought at par with the other retired civil servants, who had not exercised their option of seeking commutation of their pension

Retired civil servant on expiry of the period of commutation could not be discriminated against by being paid less pension, than his colleagues, who had not sought commutation, as there was no valid justification available in law between the two

If the Government were to adopt such a course of (discriminative) action, as had been attempted in the present case, it would offend Art. 25 of the Constitution

Restored pension payable to a retired civil servant upon expiry of period of commutation would obviously include any increase in pension granted by the Government during the intervening period of commutation

Even retired civil servants of the Federal Government were being paid their pension inclusive of the increases sanctioned during the commutation period, after the Supreme Court struck down an Office Memorandum, which deprived increase in pension sanctioned during the commuted period

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner was retired employee of a company Progressive Papers Limited which was fully owned by National Press Trust Limited and had sought increase in pension in line with that given to civil servants; which was allowed

Contention of appellants was that petitioner did not fall within definition of "civil servant", and was therefore not entitled to increase in pension in line with that of retired civil servants

Held, that employees whose terms and conditions of service were not governed by statutory law did not qualify as civil servants

Under the Progressive Papers Pension Rules, 1985, the petitioner did not have any statutory or vested right to claim pension in the status of a civil servant, and as an employee of the company he was only entitled to receive pension according to Progressive Papers Pension Rules, 1985

Any higher right claimed under an inapplicable status could not sustain

Claim for increment in pension given to civil servants, therefore lacked legal force

Appeal was disposed of.

Pension was a post retirement benefit of a civil servant that was earned by a civil servant by giving the best years of his life in the service of the country

Such post retirement monetary allowance was geared to comfort and protect a civil servant in the post retirement days when he ordinarily had no other source of income, was infirm and of old age

Pension was therefore, the very life-line of a civil servant in post-retirement days and, therefore, an integral part of his livelihood and perhaps more dearer than the salary received during his service

Pension cannot be a static amount as it had to provide for the rising cost of living and escalating inflation which a retired civil servant had to face and survive in and therefore like salary, pension was a real time concept.

Petitioners, after retirement from civil service commuted 50% of their pension for a period of 15 years and during said period of commutation, the monthly (50%) pension had increased by certain percentages over the years

Contention of the petitioners/pensioners was that after the period of commutation ended, the restored commuted portion of the pension should be at par with the 50 % pension as it stood after lapse of 15 years

Validity

Pension of the petitioners was increased every year in the range of 5% to 20% and 50% pension of the petitioners in the year 2008 was much higher than in the year 1993

Said increase in pension covered the inflationary tendencies over the years

Pensioners commuted their 50% pension for a period of 15 years, which meant that a lump sum payment of 50% of the pension on the basis of the pension as it stood in the year 1993 was worked out over a future period of 15 years and handed over to the pensioners

During said period of 15 years, the benefit of increase in pension was enjoyed by the pensioners only to the extent of 50% which was the pension received by them monthly

Under the Punjab Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1955, the pension stood restored at the end of the commutation period which meant that the pensioners were once again entitled to 100% pension as it stood on that day

Best index to gauge the pension due on the said date was the amount of 50% pension being received monthly by the pensioners on the said date and pension due would now be double the said amount

Preposterous to imagine that a civil servant be given pension in the year 2008 which he was entitled to draw in 1993 (15 years ago) as such action offended the right to livelihood of the pensioners guaranteed under Art.9 of the Constitution and failed to meet the test of economic justice which is also an integral part of right to life as provided in the Preamble and the Objectives Resolution to the Constitution (Art.2A)

Depriving a civil servant of his lawful pension was also discriminatory when compared to equally placed retired civil servants who were drawing the current rate of pension, which offended Art.25 of the Constitution

No civilized system could provide for such an unreasonable and uneconomical post retirement benefit to their employees who had given their golden years for the public service of the country

Petitioners were therefore, entitled to all increments in pensions accumulated over the last 15 years and restored computed portion of the pension must be at par with the remaining 50% net pension as it stood on the day of the expiry of the commutation period

Constitutional petitions were allowed, accordingly.

Pension was a right which the Government servants or employees in different positions and different capacities earned in terms of the relevant statutory provisions applicable to their cases, mostly depending upon their length of service

Pension was not a State bounty which could be awarded to any individual outside the scope of the applicable statute, as a favour.

Pension was not a bounty from the State/employer to the servant/employee, but it was fashioned on the premise and the resolution that the employee served his employer in the days of his ability and capacity and during the former's debility, the latter compensated him for the services so rendered

Right to pension had to be earned and for the accomplishment thereof, the condition of length of service was most relevant and purposive.

Section 5 of the Agricultural Development Bank (Re-organization and Conversion) Ordinance, 2002 guaranteed the applicability of same terms and conditions and rules and regulations

Board of Directors had no authority under the law to assume the legislative role

No decision detrimental to the interest of employees could have been taken without bringing amendments in the statute

Board of Directors of the Bank through arbitrary, colourable and illegal exercise of authority surprised and shocked the employees by reducing pension factor from 2.33% to 1.15% and started paying the same even without approval from the federal government

Decision of Board of Directors of Bank reducing pension factor was set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Decision of Board of Directors for all practical intents and purposes resulted into structural change in the accrued rights of pension of the employees, was not liable to be entertained by the finance division

Alteration in terms and conditions of service was within the domain of Establishment Division and approval of the federal government could only be conveyed by the Establishment Division

Decision of Board of Directors was unprecedented, polluted, offensive to the constitutional guarantees and was in violation of principles of natural justice and fanciful

Decision of Board of Directors reducing pension factor was set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed.